Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Alt+F4]

Maybe as part of the plan they brought the knife, rather than rely on finding a suitable weapon once they arrived.

Could be, but there were already knives at the cottage. AK lived there, she must have known that.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Could be, but there were already knives at the cottage. AK lived there, she must have known that.

Well, aside from the possibility that the sort of knife to produce the scares and intimidation they wanted may not have been at the cottage, taking a knife with them to the cottage added to the game, the fantasy, building them up for what they wanted to do. I can imagine that it would have been far more exciting for them having that 'power' on them as they headed for the cottage, rather then a plan along the lines of saying 'Oh, hi Mez' as they walk in through to the kitchen to grab a knife out of the drawer. Where's the style in that? Listen...when you go to a fancy dress party you arrive at the door dressed in your costume, not go off into a side room once there to get ready.

 

[lector]

I was going to edit my earlier post but the discussion has already moved on.

I was just now re-reading the latter portion of the Micheli Report & realized that it may indicate that my little notion is not credible. Ultimately it's hard to tell because the Google translation is not very clear on the relevant points.

Hopefully a good translation of the judge's report on the AK/RS trial will be more illuminating.

 

[piktor]

Apoptotic cells and DNA cleavage

I don't know if this helps but DNA degrades in direct sunlight, heat, humidity, electromagnetic fields.

Dead skin cells contain already degraded DNA. The longer dead skin cells are floating around, less workable DNA will be found on them. The quality will be poor to unworkable.

DNA begins degrading after 24 hours of exposure to enviroment. If DNA-carrying substance is shed and it rains on it, that DNA will be of little use very quickly. Hydrolysis (chemical degradation caused by water) occurs in less than 24 hours etc.

Dead skin cells die because the DNA in them is so broken down by sunlight, soap, and time, the DNA in them will be already degraded DNA once shed. Also, the apoptosis mechanism within skin cells, and all cells, for a timed death and the DNA cleavage (splitting) process that results.

Also, dead skin cells are dry epithelial cells, DNA thrives in a liquid state, saliva, sweat, blood, etc.

DNA is living matter that will spoil easily. It is best kept at minus 20 degrees Celsius.

DNA is not kryptonite.

This from a forensics pro:

''DNA degrades when exposed to the environment, breaking into fragments that may be too small for RFLP analysis.''- Phillip Jones, Forensic Magazine

http://www.forensicmag.com/articles.asp?pid=17

Conclusion: dead skin cells contain DNA that is of low quality or unusable.

 

[Alt+F4]

DNA is not kryptonite.

Indeed. So how was Meredith's DNA still on the knife taken from RS's apartment four days after the murder? Didn't the prosecution say the knife had been cleaned with bleach? How did the DNA survive the bleach and four more days in the drawer? How many more days after that was the knife tested for DNA?

 

[Fulcanelli]

Indeed. So how was Meredith's DNA still on the knife taken from RS's apartment four days after the murder? Didn't the prosecution say the knife had been cleaned with bleach? How did the DNA survive the bleach and four more days in the drawer? How many more days after that was the knife tested for DNA?

Umm...four days? We can extract viable DNA from sources that are thousands of years old, provided those sources are protected enough. Seriously, four days in a draw isn't an issue. The only issue is the bleach. But bleach will not get rid of 100% of DNA, especially since they would have used bleach for home use, rather then industrial bleach that labs use. It's therefore not overly surprising that a trace of DNA survived requiring the machine to have it's sensitivity increased, while the rest of the DNA was destroyed.

You need to understand this is a world in colour with added shades of grey, not black and white where it's either/or...'either' all the DNA is present...'or' it's all destroyed. The in between also exists, ranging in scale.

 

[Alt+F4]

The only issue is the bleach. But bleach will not get rid of 100% of DNA, especially since they would have used bleach for home use, rather then industrial bleach that labs use. It's therefore not overly surprising that a trace of DNA survived requiring the machine to have it's sensitivity increased, while the rest of the DNA was destroyed.

I don't know much about DNA. Does industrial bleach kill DNA faster than household bleach?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Well, aside from the possibility that the sort of knife to produce the scares and intimidation they wanted may not have been at the cottage, taking a knife with them to the cottage added to the game, the fantasy, building them up for what they wanted to do. I can imagine that it would have been far more exciting for them having that 'power' on them as they headed for the cottage, rather then a plan along the lines of saying 'Oh, hi Mez' as they walk in through to the kitchen to grab a knife out of the drawer. Where's the style in that? Listen...when you go to a fancy dress party you arrive at the door dressed in your costume, not go off into a side room once there to get ready.

I may be way off here, but are we sure that the knife was ever in Sollecito's cottage before that night? Perhaps it was a knife from AK/MK's apartment and to remove the evidence, it was taken to Sollecito's cottage, cleaned, and thrown in a drawer with the rest of his knives...

 

[Fiona]

The Italian flat mates said they never saw it in the cottage, so far as I recall: Knox at one point early on said it was hers and that she did not know how it got to Sollecito's but after the Italian girls said they did not know it that seemed to get dropped

 

[piktor]

I may be way off here, but are we sure that the knife was ever in Sollecito's cottage before that night? Perhaps it was a knife from AK/MK's apartment and to remove the evidence, it was taken to Sollecito's cottage, cleaned, and thrown in a drawer with the rest of his knives...

It has to be Sollecito's. Laura and Filomena would have recognized it as theirs if it had been taken from Pergola 7.

On the matter of the knife and bleach, if I remember correctly, the knife was disassembled and then tested for DNA. My guess is after disassembly, Knox's DNA was collected. Strange there was no Sollecito DNA on it. He was the owner. Knox's DNA was forcefully embedded into the handle.

Something an American forensic expert said: it is not possible to collect epithelial cells' DNA from the tip without finding blood DNA. The chemical test for blood is much more sensitive than the chemical test for cell DNA, found at the knife's tip.

We have no evidence to say how Meredith's ten to twenty cells were found on the knife tip, so we would only speculate without proof about that discovery but if it belonged to Sollecito, why was there no Sollecito DNA on it. Bleach removed it, no doubt. The forceful Knox DNA imprint was found, despite the bleach treatment, though.

Maybe, I have no proof, the knife tip had a microscopic chink that got closed mechanically before the bleach treatment. Scientific police went over the tip with a microscope and found the chink of interest, manipulated the metal to open it up and made their discovery of the very few Kercher cells embedded in it. Just my two cents.

 

[Fiona]

Both sets of dna which were found were in flaws or grooves: one in the handle and one in blade (not the tip).

The article halides1 posted about bleach said that it takes 15 minutes immersion in a half strength solution of commercial bleach to remove all traces of dna from old bone. I do not think it at all implausible that this dna would remain because if scrubbing I think it unlikely one would do so for a full 15 minutes

 

[piktor]

Indeed. So how was Meredith's DNA still on the knife taken from RS's apartment four days after the murder? Didn't the prosecution say the knife had been cleaned with bleach? How did the DNA survive the bleach and four more days in the drawer? How many more days after that was the knife tested for DNA?

The bra clasp on the floor was retrieved on Dec. 8, more than a month after Nov. 2 and the DNA evidence on it was admitted in court. It had ''abundant'' DNA and it was collected and analysed by the scientific police.

 

[stilicho]

I have been reading this thread from the begining, and perhaps I missed it, but something doesn't make sense to me. The prosecution said that the motivation for the murder was a sex game gone bad. To me at least, that doesn't seem like a very strong motive to kill.

Assume AK and RS just snapped and murdered MK, how does that explain them bringing the knife all the way from RS's apartment? Bringing the knife shows premedition which doesn't fit in with the prosecution's theory at all.

This case didn't make sense to me when the verdict came out either, Alt-F4. The Seattle media was rife with "circumstantial evidence", "weak case", and "no motive" stories and that's what piqued my interest in it. That's when I started reading the actual proceedings (reported at Perugia Murder Files) and finding that the media stories were very one-sided.

The reason RG was even involved was for the sexual assault. RS and AK were already intimate with each other. They weren't there to sexually assault Meredith but to intimidate her into having sex with RG. And it really only developed that way. There is no evidence that the murder itself was premeditated and the prosecution didn't argue that it was. If they had managed, through physical force, to intimidate Meredith into going along with their power game then there would have been no murder.

The decision to murder Meredith only occurred to them after she screamed and refused to submit. Fulcanelli can correct me but I believe there were up to forty knife cuts on Meredith that were not the fatal blow.

------------

@Kestrel: Re: If she actually believes that dead skin cells don't have DNA, it shows she doesn't understand the basic science behind the procedures she is running in the lab.

Are you sure that's what she believes? Frankly, Kestrel, the way you're explaining DNA transfer to non-scientists here, we would all wonder how it was ever used in criminal cases. If all you have to do is say--"well, dead cells containing DNA can technically float all over the place"--then nobody would ever be convicted by that evidence.

The onus is on you to establish your claim. That's how science works.

Your examples have been completely unrelated to your allegations against the forensics team in the Perugia murder case. I read several of your links and they are littered with examples of false positives, confirmation bias, outright falsification, and/or systemic problems in the laboratory leading to its closure. None of these are evident here. None of these are this brand new thing you think happened here, and only in the case of the DNA on the bra clasp but not on any of the other swabs where no such contamination was found.

I know this has been explained several times to you so please produce the examples of this brand new (should I say exotic?) claim about DNA transfer.

 

[Alt+F4]

The reason RG was even involved was for the sexual assault. RS and AK were already intimate with each other. They weren't there to sexually assault Meredith but to intimidate her into having sex with RG. And it really only developed that way. There is no evidence that the murder itself was premeditated and the prosecution didn't argue that it was. If they had managed, through physical force, to intimidate Meredith into going along with their power game then there would have been no murder.

Thank you for this information. Was the prosecution able to prove any of this or was it just a theory?

 

[lector]

Fulcanelli can correct me but I believe there were up to forty knife cuts on Meredith that were not the fatal blow.

I have been reading a lot on the case over the last several days. I came across one source which stated specifically that Meredith had sustained over forty injuries, including knife wounds & bruises. It did not break down the number further.

That was new to me as I've seen the "forty knife wounds" meme in many places.

It would be nice if I'd kept track of the source but I don't have the time to go at this systematically.

 

[Kestrel]

@Kestrel: Re: If she actually believes that dead skin cells don't have DNA, it shows she doesn't understand the basic science behind the procedures she is running in the lab.

Are you sure that's what she believes? Frankly, Kestrel, the way you're explaining DNA transfer to non-scientists here, we would all wonder how it was ever used in criminal cases. If all you have to do is say--"well, dead cells containing DNA can technically float all over the place"--then nobody would ever be convicted by that evidence.

The onus is on you to establish your claim. That's how science works.

Your examples have been completely unrelated to your allegations against the forensics team in the Perugia murder case. I read several of your links and they are littered with examples of false positives, confirmation bias, outright falsification, and/or systemic problems in the laboratory leading to its closure. None of these are evident here. None of these are this brand new thing you think happened here, and only in the case of the DNA on the bra clasp but not on any of the other swabs where no such contamination was found.

I know this has been explained several times to you so please produce the examples of this brand new (should I say exotic?) claim about DNA transfer.

Let me explain, starting with an example of fingerprint evidence.

Suppose you and several other guys watched the game last Sunday on a friends big screen. On Monday, your friend shows up to work but on Tuesday he doesn't. This morning someone finds his body. Your friend has been murdered in his own living room.

When the police process the crime scene, they find a nice set of your prints on an empty beer bottle. All the prints really show is you had been at the victims house, eating his greasy nachos and drinking his beer. They don't prove you were the murderer, because they were not necessarily left at the time of the crime. If your prints were left in the victims blood, then there would be evidence tying the prints to the murder.

DNA evidence is similar in some respects. If the investigators find blood under the victims fingernails and the DNA matches yours, you have some explaining to do. But if they find your DNA on the TV remote, it simply shows you probably handled that device at some time.

Early DNA testing needed a lot of material to make a match. The latest techniques can process what is known as touch DNA, samples that are too small to see.

The technique has dramatically increased the number of items of evidence that can be used for DNA detection. In the 1980s, in order to perform DNA analysis on a crime scene or victim, forensic investigators needed a blood or semen stain about the size of a quarter. The sample size fell in the 1990s to the size of a dime and then became: “If you can see it, you can analyze it.”

Touch DNA doesn’t require you to see anything, or any blood or semen at all. It only requires seven or eight cells from the outermost layer of our skin.

A blood stain the size of a dime will not float around on air currents. Seven or eight dead skin cells can easily float.

The upshot is that when we are dealing with microscopic quantities of material containing DNA, contamination is much more likely. A couple hundred picograms of material is a dust spec, it can float on air currents. It's easily transferred on a technician's gloves, clothing or equipment.

 

[Fulcanelli]

The upshot is that when we are dealing with microscopic quantities of material containing DNA, contamination is much more likely. A couple hundred picograms of material is a dust spec, it can float on air currents. It's easily transferred on a technician's gloves, clothing or equipment.

It's a good thing that we're not talking about a 'couple of hundred' picograms then, but instead one thousand four hundred picograms, more than ten times that number...which was the amount on the clasp.

 

[Kestrel]

It's a good thing that we're not talking about a 'couple of hundred' picograms then, but instead one thousand four hundred picograms, more than ten times that number...which was the amount on the clasp.

There was 1.4 nanograms of DNA material in total, but most of that was from Meredith. The prosecution expert said that there was a ratio of six parts of DNA from Meredith to one part from RS (it may have been all others including RS). A six to one ration indicates that 1/7^th of the 1.4 nanograms, or 200 picograms was from RS.

 

[Fulcanelli]

There was 1.4 nanograms of DNA material in total, but most of that was from Meredith. The prosecution expert said that there was a ratio of six parts of DNA from Meredith to one part from RS (it may have been all others including RS). A six to one ration indicates that 1/7^th of the 1.4 nanograms, or 200 picograms was from RS.

I'm not sure where you got that from, but it's wrong. The total wasn't 1.4 nanograms, that was the amount for Raffaele alone (1400 picograms).

 

[Kestrel]

I'm not sure where you got that from, but it's wrong. The total wasn't 1.4 nanograms, that was the amount for Raffaele alone (1400 picograms).

Do you have the lab results handy, or are you just making things up as you go along?